The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-08-26
THOMAS RESIGNATION.
IT WAS THE RESULT OF THE
POLICY OF THE COUNCIL.

IT WAS THE RESULT OF The
POLICY OF THE COUNCIL.
He Charges That the Council Has
Steadily Refused to Back Him Up,
and that the Burden of Enforcing
Certain Ordinances Has Fallen Upon
Him Alone-He States His View of
the Case. -
The resignation Of Mr.. D. r. Thomas, as
member of the Board of Aldermen, was
the talk of the city yesterday. Mr.. Thomas
was seen, and be gave a thorough resume
of the causes that led him to take this step
The trouble really is, as Mr.. Thomas states,
the interference of the Council with the de
tails of department, rendering their work
still more difficult and. perhaps, delaying it
greatly.
There are rigorous ordinances on the books
regarding signs and other sidewalk obstruc-
lions. On June 2, 1856, the City Council
adopted an ordinance that it shall not be
lawful to occupy any part of the side
walks or pavements for steps or porticos i'll
future, and no steps or porticos shall be so
built as TO encrOach on any part of the
streets or lanes of this city. Mr.. Thomas
says he voted against it, not believing it
Just or fair, as it Disseminated in favor of
some and against others. 1t was passed,
however, much to his SURPRISE and
he was soon thereafter appointed
Chairman of the Street and Lane
committee, and expected to enforce an ordi-
nance he HAD opposed. Some work was
found necessary TO render it effective and to
lop off its most Objectionable features and
1t was amended twice
Mr.. Thomas takes the ground that as long
as an ordinance is on the books the oath of
the Aldermen obliges them to see that it is
enforced He states that trouble first grew
out of the sign ordinance and it was found
very hard to enforce it, The question was
referred TO the City Attorney and he de-
ivered the following opinion:
SAVANNAH GA, Aug 10, 1887.
D. r. Thomas, Esq, Chairman Committee on
Streets and Lanes, CitH
DEAR SIR-Your favor of this date received.
In response would beg to say that, in my opin-
lon, under ordnance of April "a, 1872 (Rebarer's
Digest, page 1919, signs cannot be suspended
over, although not entirely across, sidewalks.
The ordinance provides that sign cannot be
erected across ANY part of pavement street,
lane or thoroughfare," sign may be put on a
post, providing it is not across ANY part of the
pavement, etc, and providing the post is not
Itself an obstruction or eucroachment 1t seems
TO me that it would be very difficult if not i'm
practicable, TO put a sign on top Of post with
very truly, SAMUEL B. ADAMS,
City Attorney.
The same trouble existed as regards the
portico restrictions, only TO greater extent.
HymeS Bro. & Co and Miss Feeley both
petitioned for something that existing ordi-
hances strictly prohibited. Therefore"
said Mr. Thomas, "when this committee re-
fused to act illegally and permit them to
obstruct the sidewalk they petitioned to the
Council Half the members of the board
knew the exact facts in the case, and had
seen the letter OF the Corporation Attorney
In the matter.
"They couldn't grant permission to any
one to break the city's laws, therefore, why
were these petitions referred to the Street
two petitions of sic liar character were
received, and the Council only received
them for information, which ended the mat
ter and enabled the Marshal to proceed
with the execution of his duty. | felt
that | had borne the brunt of all
the trouble regarding these ordinances,
and the acceptance Of these petitions natu-
rally would lead people to suppose | was en-
Drcing the ordinances to point not author
lied by their wording. The Aldermen had
all the information before them at the time,
and nothing could be gained by a fort
nights delay.
II considered that my oath of office obliged
me to enforce the ordinances, and | would
hot be party to their violation,
hence my resignation. Others have been
obliged to cut away their stoopS, when on
the sidewalk line, and others to change
their plans on buildings already begun, and
| saw no reason why there should be differ
emit laws for different persons. Two wrongs
won't make right. II these ordinances are
wrong, then amend them properly, but Civ
ing permission TO violate the city laws
would certainly be very reprehensible.
When the ordinance was first passed | had
BOZ copies printed and distributed so all in
tending to build could do 50 understanding
W.
Regarding the status of the resignation he
would say nothing, but those asking about
matters pertaining to the Street Committee
he directed to Alderman Nichols.
Mr.. Thomas also stated that one trouble
regarding the strict enforcement of the
ordinances was the Marshars multifarious
duties. Owing to his limited time, many
violations have not been reported on as
quickly as they should have been, and Mr.
Thomas was Obliged to do more police work
than was pleasant to him. The present
condition of the city ordinances, especially
those relating to streets, which are COM
paratively unknown, render tho work of
his department doubly hard
There was general expression of regret
among all classes of citizens yesterday over
Alderman Thomas resignation During
the day the Alderman received an official
communication from the Clerk of Council
transmitting to him an extract from the
proceedings Of meeting on Wednesday
hight, embodying his resignation and the
action of Council in not accepting it. The
generally expressed wish is that he should
remain in the board, of which he has been
one of the most active and efficient mem
bers, and that will probably induce him to
remain member. In fact, it is generally
understood that everything will be har-
monized to-day and whatever is necessary
to restore the statu quo will be done.